Not the same thing as I'm asking you for but you know that and keep deflecting because the truth will not fit your narrative.
		Originally Posted by CryptKicker
			
		
	
Fify
        
 
        
        
     
	
    
    
        
            
	
		
		Not the same thing as I'm asking you for but you know that and keep deflecting because the truth will not fit your narrative.
		Originally Posted by CryptKicker
			
		
	
 
	
		
		                     Originally Posted 
	
		by CryptKicker                     
                 
                 Not the same thing as I'm asking you for but you know that and keep deflecting because the truth will not fit your narrative.
	
Fify
		Originally Posted by Missburger
			
		
	
  ???
or
is this a awesome fix
        
 
        
        
     
	
    
    
        
            can't remember any other time Stewie has been accused of being awesome....
        
        
        
     
	
    
    
        
            
	
		
		can't remember any other time Stewie has been accused of being awesome....
		Originally Posted by Paulie Rockstar
			
		
	
"There was that one time, in band camp..."
        
 
        
        
     
	
    
        
        
        
        
         
    
        
            
	
		
		Money is made in cities, all cities are  democratically controlled, largest republican cities I could find have  around 300,000 people… I’m not a diagnosed genius, but I can tell that  running a city with 8 million, 5 million or 3 million people is much  more difficult than a city with 300,000…. Also those cities with  millions are supporting the rest of the USA by generating federal tax  dollars which are stolen and redistributed to those poorly run  republican welfare states.
		Originally Posted by bf0082
			
		
	
	
		
		why do you and others keep posting this  nonsense? cities don't mean shit in terms of federal tax distributions.  it's about states. the four largest states by population are in order ..  Kalifornica, Texas, Florida. and New Dork. bahhaaa. ok California and  New York. 
in political terms that's blue, red, red, blue. your argument falls flat  on it's face on that alone. butt let's look at it even further, shall  we? 
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states
so now that we've shown who the Big 4 are .. the largest states  contribute the most in terms of tax revenue because they have the  largest populations. does not matter how many cities they have. the  total population matters. now how does federal money get doled out? it  gets doled out by need where smaller states with less population get a  larger share because they have less population. with me so far? 
The ten states with the highest total federal funding are:
- California ($43.61 billion)
 
- Texas ($26.90 billion)
 
- Florida ($23.77 billion)
 
- New York ($22.06 billion)
 
- Virginia ($17.68 billion)
 
- Pennsylvania ($15.58 billion)
 
- Illinois ($13.18 billion)
 
- Ohio ($12.57 billion)
 
now about that leftist media lie you've been told .. 
No, 'blue states' do not bail out 'red states'
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...out-red-states
The  COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic shutdown have wreaked havoc on  state budgets. Certain state leaders, including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Illinois Senate President Don Harmon, have urged Congress for an injection of federal funds to save state finances. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell  (R-Ky.) rightly responded that such a policy would constitute a federal  bailout of spendthrift, big government states at the expense of  fiscally conservative states. Progressives glibly replied   that it is actually “blue states” that bail out “red states.” This   sophomoric switcheroo gets more than its fair play in the media but   rests on several false equivalencies and bad logic.  
Those  arguing that “blue states” are the ones bailing out “red states”  point  to the federal “balance of payment” ratios, or federal tax  dollars  collected compared to federal money received, on a  state-by-state basis.  The states with lowest balance of payment ratios   (collecting more federal taxes than they receive in federal funds) are   Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York. The states with  the  highest balance of payments (receiving more federal funds than they   collect in federal taxes) are Kentucky, New Mexico, Mississippi and  West  Virginia. Therefore, “blue states” are bailing out “red states” —  or so  they say.
But federal balance of payment ratios are not as  indicative as pundits  think they are. New Mexico is often deemed a “blue  state” and West  Virginia had Democratic control of the governor’s  mansion and both  state legislative chambers as recently as 2014.  The  relationship between state policy and balance-of-payment ratios   becomes even weaker considering that North Dakota, New Hampshire and   Nebraska — so-called “red states” — all have balance of payment ratios   of less than 1.00. This means they receive less in federal funds than   they collect in federal taxes, just like Connecticut, New Jersey,   Massachusetts and New York.
In  fact, 40 states have a balance of payment ratio higher than 1.00.  Far  from a dependency caused by state political leaning, it is typical  for  states to receive more in federal funds than they collect in  federal  taxes — an anomaly made possible only by rampant federal  deficit  spending.
Assuming data supported the claim that “blue states”  bail out “red  states,” using balance-of-payment ratios as a measure to  support that  claim is a non-sequitur, because balance-of-payment ratios  depend  entirely on federal tax and spending policy. The amount of  federal  revenue collected from state taxpayers depends mostly on state  income,  and the federal income tax levies higher rates on filers with  higher  incomes. Progressives designed the federal income tax to burden   high-income earners on purpose and support policies to make the federal   income tax increasingly weighted toward the wealthy.
The states with the highest personal income per capita   are Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. The states   with the lowest personal income per capita are Mississippi, West   Virginia, Alabama, New Mexico and Kentucky. These are the exact same   states with the lowest and highest balance of payment ratios,   respectively. It is hypocritical to decry the tax code for  taxing  high-income states more than low income states while  intentionally  designing tax policies with that effect.
The other side of balance-of-payment ratios is federal spending. Some of the most expensive federal programs   are Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social   Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income   (SSI). Each of these is “means tested,” meaning recipients must earn   below a certain income threshold in order to receive federal assistance.   Low-income states receive more federal money than high-income states  by  design because of means-tested federal poverty programs. As these   programs expand and become more generous, the gap between state   balance-of-payment ratios will only increase as federal taxes and   spending increase to pay for means-tested poverty assistance.
Plus, federal means-tested eligibility does not control for differences in cost of living between states. Mississippi and Hawaii are the least and most expensive states to live in,   respectively, while federal eligibility requirements are uniform. Many   Mississippians receiving federal assistance would not be considered   “poor” compared to their state’s cost of living, while many Hawaiians   not receiving federal assistance may be considered “poor” because of how   expensive Hawaii is compared to other states. Balance of payments   ratios have nothing to do with state policy and everything to do with   state income.
          
 On the other hand, a state’s financial health has everything to do with state policy. In the ALEC publications Unaccountable and Unaffordable, Other Post-Employment Benefit Liabilities and State Bonded Obligations,   it is very clear some states practiced restraint and shored up state   finances in preparation while other states continuously raised taxes and   spending while underfunding long-term obligations. Many policy   organizations — ALEC included  —  have urged against a federal bailout of states because of the  inherent  moral hazard. Pundits will use the red herring of a “red  state” bailout  to distract from what a federal bailout of states truly  looks like — a  redistribution of tax dollars from taxpayers in  responsible states to  states that refused to make hard choices during  the good times.
Statistical  differences in federal income taxation and welfare  policy is not a  bailout. Pumping federal cash into spendthrift states  to rescue them  from underwater pensions and backlogged debt service is.
Skip Estes is the legislative manager at the ALEC Center for State Fiscal Reform. Follow him on  Twitter @Skip_Estes.
		Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
			
		
	
.